On 02/24/2015 01:34 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 12:43 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > [...] >>> ==== option one - introducing new packages - preferred ==== >>> 1. main jdk is proclaimed as dead as it was until now. The new jdk is derived >>> as new package prviousName-legacy >> >> Fedora already supports multiple JDKs installable in parallel. This was >> inherited from JPackage project. This breaks long-established rule of >> naming JDK packages as "java-x.y.z-vendor" used across different >> distributions (JPackage, Fedora, RHEL, SUSE, ...) > [...] > > The idea behind this "-legacy" suffix was to ensure a reasonable upgrade > path for people *only* using default java-x.y.z-openjdk package. > > Consider the following scenario (all hypothetical, not saying that any > Fedora releases and JDK releases align in this way): > > F22 has default JDK of java-1.8.0-openjdk. Then, F23 will get > java-1.9.0-openjdk as default and F24 java-1.10.0-openjdk as default. > The upgrade from F22 => F23 will install java-1.9.0-openjdk and remove > java-1.8.0-openjdk. Similarly, the upgrade from F23 to F24 will install > java-1.10.0-openjdk and remove java-1.9.0-openjdk. This is to ensure > that no old JDKs stick around on the majority of Fedora systems. > > If the name was kept there does not seem to be a good way to: > 1.) Ensure dist upgrades update JDK packages That should be possible to achieve without renaming JDK packages. I haven't considered all options, but one of several possibilities is creating "java" package that would require the latest JDK/JRE. If user installs "java" then it will be updated to latest version when it becomes available, but if user installs "java-1.8.0-openjdk" then it won't be updated as user explicitly asked for 1.8.0. > 2.) Ensure dist upgrades remove old JDK package (which may no longer > get security updates). Firstly, as I understand upgrade isn't supposed to remove packages by default, unless they are obsoleted or conflict with something. Are you saying that JDKs should be treated exceptionally by package management systems? Secondly, if the old JDK is still maintained by someone then I don't see a problem with leaving it installed - it shouldn't be used by default unless user explicitly configured it as default. This is standard behavior of PMS and at least that's what I would expect as user. (If old JDK is not maintained any longer then it would be obsoleted and removed during update.) > Do you see a way to achieve this without a name change of the package? I see some ways to achieve 1) without 2), but I don't think that 2) is necessary or expected by users. -- Mikolaj Izdebski Software Engineer, Red Hat IRC: mizdebsk -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
